A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

As per. my previous post, for Peacegirl no proof is enough.

I didn't see it LadyShea. There are a lot of posts to respond to and it's hard to keep up. This does explain the light-time correction that they say came from the moons of Jupiter experiment. I am still not convinced though that this proves that we see in delayed time. You are saying that this explanation proves that Lessans is wrong about efferent sight. I think the verdict has yet to be determined.

An approximate light-time is calculated by dividing the object's geometric distance from Earth by the speed of light. Then the object's velocity is multiplied by this approximate light-time to determine its approximate displacement through space during that time. Its previous position is used to calculate a more precise light-time.

Light-time correction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I appreciate your effort to find this link which does indicate that scientists do, in fact, include the light-time correction in their calculations. But no matter how foolproof it all seems, I am still wondering if this "light-time" correction that is factored in means that what we see (the object) is from the light and only the light. Could something else account for the discrepancy? Therefore, I'm not completely convinced that this proves we see in delayed time. With ephemeris data used in GPS systems, I can absolutely see where the data sent back from the satellite gives us precise information as to a person's location here on Earth.

ephemeris data

GPS satellites include ephemeris data in the signals they transmit to GPS receivers.

Ephemeris data is a set of parameters that can be used to accurately calculate the location of a GPS satellite at a particular point in time. It describes the path that the satellite is following as it orbits Earth.

To accurately calculate your location, ephemeris data is only usable for a limited time (a few hours or less). Up-to-date data is needed to minimize error that results from minor variations in a satellite's orbit.

[LadyShea]

I contacted the admins and still no response. Surely they have a password retrieval?

[peacegirl]

duplicate

[LadyShea]

You are saying that this is the only reason possible

No, I haven't said that. I've said that it is the explanation in actual use by science, and that it has certainly gotten accurate results in the space exploration program.

But, by all means offer alternative explanations to be investigated. That's what scientific methodology is all about.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I contacted the admins and still no response. Surely they have a password retrieval?

Started a thread here, asking what the problem is.

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by thedoc

Using the JPL Solar System Ephemeris

from the article by JPL,

Time Delay and Apparent Direction
Specifying a planet's position in the sky can be quite confusing because it can be done in any one of a number of spherical coordinate conventions (B1950, J2000, current epoch, etc.), and there are two physical corrections for the finite speed of light. We will say more about the coordinate conventions in a separate document. For the moment let's look at the light travel time corrections
Things are always as they appear, but it depends on whom you ask. When we look at a planet we are actually seeing the planet where it was when its light left the planet. This could be minutes or even hours before the current time. The procedure for compensating for this time delay is to compute the distance to the planet at the time of observation. From this compute the light travel time, recompute the planet's position for current time minus light travel time, and use this earlier planet's position with the current observatory, moon, and earth-moon barycenter positions in the Planet(a,b,c) equation above.

The planet's position obtained from this procedure is its "astrometric" position in the reference frame of the solar system ephemeris. That is, it is the position of the planet as it would appear on the background of stars as plotted in this frame, J2000 for example.

The second correction to the apparent direction of a planet, due to the finite speed of light, comes from the motion of the observer. The same correction needs to made to star positions, where it is called "aberration of star light." The time-worn analogy is of a person running in the rain. If the person is standing still, the rain appears to be coming straight down, but, if the person is moving, the rain appears to be coming from the direction of motion. The aberration correction to the apparent direction of a star or planet, in radians, is the ratio of the velocity component of the observer's motion perpendicular to the line of sight to the speed of light. The earth's orbital velocity is about 30 km/s so the annual aberration can be much as 30 / 300,000 = .0001 radians or about 20 arcseconds.

One might ask "velocity with respect to what?" when computing aberration. In the case of stars we dodge the question by computing only differential aberration for different times of day and year, hence, the terms "diurnal aberration" and "annual aberration." For a planet we can use the observer's lateral velocity with respect to the planet, but this correction will include the time-of-flight correction for the speed of light outlined above. Since the time-of-flight correction used the planet's velocity with respect to the solar system barycenter, we can add the aberration correction using the earth's velocity with respect to the barycenter. Another, slightly more rigorous approach is to compute the sum of both corrections together by computing the direction of the planet using the positions of both the planet and observer at the current time minus the light travel time.

The Astronomical Almanac is not entirely consistent on how it lists planetary positions. Pluto's position is tabulated as astrometric. In other words, it is corrected for the light's time-of-flight but not for aberration, and the coordinate frame is J2000 as given by the DE200 ephemeris. All other planetary positions are listed as "apparent", the position with respect to the current equator and equinox including the correction for aberration. In other words, these positions are corrected for precession, nutation, aberration, and time-of-flight.

[LadyShea]

Just post the question david. You can use my exact wording in the letter I sent to NASA, to show it's not you asking it, but you on the behalf of non-present discussants.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A car has been traveling East on I-10 for 2 hours at 50 miles an hour. Where is the car actually located peacegirl?

Without a starting or ending location (a known variable), you can't even begin a calculation of current location. There is not enough information to lay out a formula.

So, if not the apparent location, what could they possibly use as a known variable for any formula or calculations for the actual location of a planet?

I get that, but it's true position is based on geometry, which is accurate. There remains a conflict between Lessans' observations regarding sight, and what scientists believe. There has to be more investigation to know what's really going on. You can't just offer this light-time correction (which is only an approximate calculation that could be related to something else) and use it to throw his entire claim in the dumpster. That is extremely premature. You haven't even understood why, in the efferent model, we can see an object no matter how far away it is as long as it is within visual range and there is light surrounding the object. Before you reject his claim you need to understand it or you won't acknowledge its plausibility.

[davidm]

I got a response; the process is automated and you should have received the email right away, as I expected. The suggestion is to check your spam file, it may have been snagged there.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get that, but it's true position is based on geometry, which is accurate. There remains a conflict between Lessans' observations regarding sight, and what scientists believe.

Correct.

There has to be more investigation to know what's really going on. You can't just offer this light-time correction (which is only an approximate calculation that could be related to something else) and use it to throw his entire claim in the dumpster.

Incorrect. Firing spacecraft at Mars is a decisive and clear refutation of his real-time seeing. We land spacecraft on specific locations on Mars; to do this we need to know EXACTLY where Mars is, in the sky, when we launch our probes. We launch our probes on the theory that Mars, as seen in the sky, is not its ACTUAL location in the sky, because we are seeing Mars as it was in the past, precisely according to the predicted time delay of light speed. Therefore there is no wriggle room. If Lessans were right, we would never hit the Mars target. We do hit the Mars target. Lessans is wrong.

Case closed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Come on, peacegirl. Think. What do scientists believe about the world? That their images are delayed, right? You're the only person in the whole wide world that believes otherwise. So why do you think scientists wouldn't believe that what they are seeing is delayed too, so only an apparent location?

Of course they do Dragar, but I'm telling you that Lessans has made a very convincing argument based on how we see. Optics actually supports his claim, but in order to see why you must understand the efferent model and how it works. No one has yet grasped why light does not have to travel 93 million miles for us to see an object that is 93 million miles away, and until they do, they are not in the position to discredit it.

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, if you're going to continue ignoring all of my posts and questions, you leave me little choice but to join the ranks of DavidM and naturalist.atheist in discussing your mental state. I would rather discuss your material, but I'm losing interest in simply reposting the same unanswered questions over and over only to be completely ignored every time.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get that, but it's true position is based on geometry, which is accurate.

Geometry requires there to be some known data to input into a formula's variables otherwise it's just a bunch of variables. What data do you think can be input to calculate a planets actual location?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course they do Dragar, but I'm telling you that Lessans has made a very convincing argument based on how we see. Optics actually supports his claim, but in order to see why you must understand the efferent model and how it works. No one has yet grasped why light does not have to travel 93 million miles for us to see an object that is 93 million miles away, and until they do, they are not in the position to discredit it.

NASA scientists correct for the fact that planets are not where we see them due to delayed vision. You've been show that they do this. You've been shown how and why they do this. And they don't miss. If Lessans were right then they would miss. Planets would not be where they aim at. Any "convincing argument" you think he made (despite never having shown it to us) is rendered completely null and void by the irrefutable hard evidence of examples such as these.

[davidm]

C'mon, LadyShea, check your spam file to see if the e-mail is there. I'd prefer you post the question; I'd like to be a spectator for a change, and this should be fun.

[LadyShea]

You haven't even understood why, in the efferent model, we can see an object no matter how far away it is as long as it is within visual range and there is light surrounding the object. Before you reject his claim you need to understand it or you won't acknowledge its plausibility.

No one has yet grasped why light does not have to travel 93 million miles for us to see an object that is 93 million miles away,

You haven't been able to explain how efferent vision can cause a photon to be absorbed by camera film when the photon is located at the Sun, 93 millions miles away from the camera film.

You keep answering questions about physical interactions between light and matter (film or plant leaves) with stuff about seeing and brains. That's not answering the questions.

Efferent vision isn't plausible at all unless it can explain empirical observations.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by davidm

C'mon, LadyShea, check your spam file to see if the e-mail is there. I'd prefer you post the question; I'd like to be a spectator for a change, and this should be fun.

I've checked my spam file, what do you think I'm stupid?

I used the same user name, LadyShea if you want to pm it to them.

[davidm]

LadyShea, are you also using LadyShea there? If they know your user name, they will fix it up for you.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I've checked my spam file, what do you think I'm stupid?

Sorreh , it is projection on my part, I always forget to check my Spam file.

[davidm]

Oh, now there is this from BAUT:

Originally Posted by BAUT forum

Tell your friend she'll have to be patient. The board's been emailing very slowly for the past few months for some reason. Fraser had been checking it out and thinks it's something to do with the cloud we're on.

Might take another day or two to get the email.

If that's the case, I'll just post the question.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I've checked my spam file, what do you think I'm stupid?

I used the same user name, LadyShea if you want to pm it to them.

Oh, I missed that second part, yes, I already told them LadyShea.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, if you're going to continue ignoring all of my posts and questions, you leave me little choice but to join the ranks of DavidM and naturalist.atheist in discussing your mental state. I would rather discuss your material, but I'm losing interest in simply reposting the same unanswered questions over and over only to be completely ignored every time.

There's no reason for you to comment on her mental state. You can simply walk away and stop posting. Wouldn't that be more civilized? You've done a great job of presenting some excellent science, SpaceMonkey, and most of us appreciate that. No reason to resort to ad hominems now.

[davidm]

No offense, ThreeLawsSafe, but I feel like Miss Manners has suddenly arrived on the scene.

[The Lone Ranger]

It's not as if peacegirl has been the least bit respectful of anyone else. Just the opposite, actually.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

There's no reason for you to comment on her mental state. You can simply walk away and stop posting. Wouldn't that be more civilized? You've done a great job of presenting some excellent science, SpaceMonkey, and most of us appreciate that. No reason to resort to ad hominems now.

I wasn't suggesting resorting to ad hominems. But Peacegirl herself rather than her material has been the drawcard here from the start. If she won't discuss her material with me, then I am free to dicuss her with other posters. Her condition and behavior is itself a fascinating topic.